The message in some job advertisements these days is pretty blunt: Don't bother sending a resume if you're not bringing home a paycheck already.

The ads list current or recent employment as an eligibility requirement, a screen to narrow the pool of candidates in a rocky economy that often leads to dozens of applicants for one job.

A random search of online job listings last year by the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit advocacy group, found 150 ads nationwide that excluded applicants based on employment status. Most of the ads said "must be currently employed," the group reported.

"So many people are unemployed for such long periods of time that this kind of discrimination has a devastating impact," said Maurice Emsellem, policy co-director at the National Employment Law Project.

New Jersey has passed a law banning such advertisements, federal legislation is pending, and a newly proposed California bill would prohibit discrimination against the jobless in hiring.

"It's the same as excluding a particular religion or minority group — it's wrong," said California Assemblyman Michael Allen, a Democrat whose bill hopes to nip the practice in the bud.

College graduates, military personnel and women returning to the workforce are among groups affected by a blanket exclusion, Allen said.

Opponents of such a law counter that lawmakers have no business interfering in companies' internal affairs and that the measure could prompt a flood of frivolous complaints that would be costly to investigate and difficult to prosecute.

"The Legislature shouldn't be running their business for them," said Joel Fox, president of the Small Business Action Committee.

Opponents say the bill is a one-size-fits-all solution, although an applicant's current or recent employment can be crucial in various high-tech jobs or other jobs requiring technology, software or skill sets that change rapidly.

Roger Niello, president of the Sacramento Metro Chamber, said that barring businesses from disqualifying the jobless could tie a company's hands in the kinds of questions asked during job interviews.

When an applicant's resume shows a gap in employment, it is natural to ask why, Niello said.

"If that law passed, you'd really be getting into risky territory any time you asked any question like that," he said.

Niello said he does not agree with jobless-need-not-apply advertising, but "I think it's absolutely inappropriate to say they can't."

Allen said his bill would not bar employers from requiring certain levels of experience, training or education; it simply would require decisions to be based on merit, not joblessness.

Allen's bill would not permit victims to sue. Violations would be subject to fines of $1,000 for a first offense, $5,000 for a second and $10,000 for each offense thereafter.

Complaints about employers would be investigated by the state labor commissioner, and accusations about employment agencies would be handled by city attorneys or the state attorney general's office, Allen said.